The staff, or crook, is the shepherd's implement, with which he tends his flock, protecting them on the one hand, or correcting them on the other.

Hence the two names adapted to the two-fold office, which might be rendered Pleasure and Pain, instead of Beauty and Bands; but there is no occasion to alter the translation, which is equally literal, and equally appropriate as it stands. It is, perhaps, worthy of note, that two staves were once in use for these different purposes. What are these staves then intended to represent? In a word, G.o.d being the Shepherd, and all mankind his flock, the staves appear to be typical of _Christ_ and _Israel_; these being the agents employed, the great instruments in the hands of G.o.d, in accomplis.h.i.+ng the work of man's redemption, from the darkness of idolatry to the light of true religion. One staff being _Israel_, with whom was founded the Old Covenant, the express object of which was the abolition of idolatry; a covenant which is continually called the "_bondage of the law_;" and the other staff, _Christ_, the founder of the New Covenant, called "_the beauty of holiness_" who declared that his yoke was easy, or pleasant; thus the name will be equally appropriate, whichever translation is adopted.

_And I took unto me two staves, the one I called __ Beauty, and the other I called Bands, and I fed the flock._

The parallelism between these two staves strikingly appears in the circ.u.mstance that the most remarkable prophecies, as the liiid. chapter of Isaiah, which the Christian conceives to be exactly fulfilled in the person and character of Christ, the Jew imagines to accord as perfectly with the circ.u.mstances and condition of the house of Israel. May we not suppose them to be designedly applicable to both? instrumental alike to the same great purpose, man's redemption from idolatry.

One of the earliest acts of Christ, who, however, did every thing in the name of the Father, was his exposing the unfitness of the Jewish leaders, who were the priests, the scribes, and the elders, to be the spiritual guides of the flock. Their selfishness and hypocrisy he unsparingly denounced, as rendering them unfit for such an office; of which they were consequently deprived under the new dispensation. Such appears to be the purport of the following verse, as ably expounded by Lowth.

_Three shepherds also I cut off in one month, and my soul loathed them, and their soul also abhorred me._

_One month_, is an indefinite expression for a short time, as if the prophet had said, _at once_. When the people had been duly warned against these treacherous guides; those who chose to disregard that warning, had no reason to complain, if it pleased Heaven to leave them to their fate, as is next declared.

_Then said I, I will not feed you; that that dieth, let it die, and that that is to be cut off, let it be cut off; and let the rest eat every one the flesh of another._

The prophet next foreshews, by typical actions, accompanied by explanations declaratory of their purport, the death of Christ, and the dissolution of the Old Covenant.

_And I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it asunder; that I might break my Covenant, which I made with all the people._

The Covenant with Moses promised protection against all nations, while Israel remained obedient. Israel disobeyed and the Covenant was broken.

The Covenant with Abraham promised blessing to all nations through his seed. The Gospel of Christ was that blessing; refused by the Jews, and consequently given to the Gentiles; for a remnant only of Israel received the Gospel, and those were the poor of the flock.

_And it was broken in that day, and so the poor of the flock that waited upon me, knew that it was the word of the Lord._

"The poor had the Gospel preached unto them," and received it with grat.i.tude; but the ingrat.i.tude of their leaders towards the Great Shepherd, for the care he had so long taken of them; and the small estimation in which they held a spiritual Messiah, are aptly foreshewn by the prophet, in the name of the Great Shepherd, claiming his reward at their hands, and their offering the precise sum which was given for Christ, thirty pieces of silver.

_And I said, If ye think good give me my wages, and if not, forbear; so they weighed me for my reward, thirty pieces of silver._

The way in which this money was actually bestowed, is next foreshewn, by the Shepherd's rejecting it scornfully, and desiring it may be given to the potter.

_And the Lord said unto me, cast it to the potter; a goodly price that I was valued at by them: so I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the Lord._

The price they actually gave for Christ, aptly denotes the value they put upon G.o.d's goodness in sending him, the Great Shepherd's proffered remuneration. The house of the Lord, or the temple, is the supposed scene of action, shewing the spiritual import of the transaction. The money being given to the potter, foreshews how it would be actually employed, to wit, in the purchase of the potter's field; in fact, it was given to the potter. If it be asked what the potter had to do in the temple? the answer is, he went there, as others did, to pray. His being there does not, as some suppose, imply that he was at work there.

Those who rejected and crucified Christ, are thenceforward rejected from being G.o.d's chosen people. As Christ was cut off from natural life, so Israel was cut off from _the life in Christ_ as next intimated.

_Then I cut asunder my other staff, even Bands, __ that I might break the brotherhood between Judah and Israel._

The house of Jacob was from this time divided into Christians and Jews, who appear to be distinguished in the prophecy under the types of Judah and Israel; the former denoting those who received, and the latter those who rejected Christ. This distinction appears to be maintained till their promised re-union in the New Jerusalem.

The spiritual evils entailed on those who reject the true Messiah, to follow after false teachers, are next foreshewn.

_And the Lord said unto me, Take unto thee yet the instruments of a foolish shepherd, for I will raise up a Shepherd in the land, which shall not visit those that be cut of, neither shall seek the young, nor heal that that is broken, nor feed that that standeth still, but he shall eat the flesh of the fat, and tear their hoofs asunder._

Israel is thus left to the mercy of these false shepherds, while spiritual blindness, infatuation, and utter helplessness, are the awful judgments denounced against the selfish and worldly-minded priesthood, who thus mislead and sacrifice their flock.

_Woe to the idol shepherd, that leaveth the flock! the sword shall be upon his arm, and upon his right eye; his arm shall be clean dried up, and his right eye shall be utterly darkened._

The spiritual blindness which has since darkened the mental vision of Israel, appears to the Christian to be here distinctly foretold.

NOTES TO CHAPTER XI.

Ver. 1. ??? ????? ?????-_Open thy doors, O Lebanon, &c._

That Jewish writers have understood "_the forest_," as metaphorically representing Jerusalem with her stately buildings, and "_Lebanon_," as the temple itself, appears from the following note of Mr. Lowth, on this pa.s.sage.

"By Lebanon, most interpreters understand the temple, whose stately buildings resemble the tall cedars of that forest. Thus the word is commonly understood," Hab. ii. 17.

There is a remarkable story mentioned in the Jewish writers to this purpose. Some time before the destruction of the temple, the doors of it opened of their own accord; a circ.u.mstance mentioned by Josephus, Bell.

Jud. 1. 7. c. 12. Then R. Johanan, a disciple of R. Hillel, directing his speech to the temple said, _I know thy destruction is at hand, according to the prophecy of Zechariah_, Open thy doors, O Lebanon, &c.

The pa.s.sage in Josephus in my edition is, lib. 6, cap. 5, and a very remarkable one it is, containing many other portents preceding the destruction of the temple, besides the spontaneous opening of these ma.s.sive doors, which were so ponderous as to require twenty men to open and shut them.

Ver. 2. ?? ??? ??? ?????-_For the forest of the vintage is come down._

By the forest of the vintage, is understood Mount Carmel, which was partly covered with vineyards and rich pastures, for the loss of which the shepherds are said to howl, in the following verse. The shepherds metaphorically designate the leaders of the people; the different trees of the forest denoting the different cla.s.ses and orders of men.

Ver. 3. ?? ??? ???? ?????-_For the pride of Jordan is spoiled._

By the pride of Jordan is to be understood, as Dr. Blayney observes, the woods and thickets on the banks of that river. These served as covert for lions, which often infested the country when driven from them by the rising of the river. These trees being along with others doomed to destruction, the lions roar for the loss of their shelter, as the shepherds howl for the loss of their rich pastures. The lions denote metaphorically the great and powerful among the people. Their disposition to prey upon and devour the flock, well accords with the character afterwards given to the shepherds also, and shews the consistency of the metaphorical language.

Ver. 6. ?? ?? ????? ??? ?? ???? ????-_For I will no more pity the inhabitants of the land, &c._

The distinction between _the sea_ and _the land_, has been already pointed out in the note to ver. 11, of the last chapter, and is here too manifest to admit of doubt. Lebanon, Bashan, Carmel, and Jordan, clearly shew what land is here spoken of, which can be no other than Palestine.

Ver. 10. ????? ?? ?????-_That I might break my covenant, &c._

It might be supposed here that the two staves were typical of the two covenants; the Old and the New. But how is the parallelism then to be supported? If the breaking of one staff denotes the dissolving of the Old Covenant; what then is denoted by the breaking of the other staff? for the New Covenant was not also dissolved. By the proposed solution, the parallelism is maintained; Christ and Israel so exactly accord, that the prophecies seem, in many points, alike applicable to either. Both were instrumental to the great work of redeeming mankind from idolatry, and both were cut of; Christ from natural life; Israel from the life which is _in Christ_. To understand clearly the cutting of the staves, the most intricate subject perhaps in the whole prophecy, the reader has to keep in view two distinct points of consideration, the confounding of which will involve him in no little perplexity; these are, first the symbolical meaning, or the event foreshewn by the act of cutting; and secondly, the end or purport of the cutting; for along with the act, the prophet also declares the motive for the act, which must not be confounded with the act itself, being the effect or consequence that followed that act. Thus he says-_And I took my staff Beauty and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant, which I had made with all the people._

Now the cutting of the first staff, Beauty, signifies or foreshews the death of Christ, or the cutting off of the Messiah. This is the symbolical meaning of the act. But the end or consequence of that act, was the cessation of the covenant of protection to Israel. "The covenant," as it may be rendered, "concerning all the people." From that time, the Jews ceased to be under the especial care and protection of Heaven; no more interpositions were manifested in their behalf; no prophet from that time appeared in Israel; these blessings being confined to the Jews who received Christ, or transferred to the Gentiles.

Next follows the cutting asunder of the second staff, Bands; and this in fact appears to be precisely the end or consequence of the cutting of the first staff; for the cutting of this staff symbolically foreshews the rejection of Israel, or the cessation of the Covenant of protection. Such appears to be the event symbolized by cutting the staff, Bands. But the effect or consequence of that event, or of the rejection of Israel, was as declared in the prophecy, a breach in the brotherhood, between Judah and Israel, or between the Jews who received and those who rejected Christ; in short, between Christian and Jew, who are here supposed to be symbolised by Judah and Israel. This division or breach was not the event foreshewn by the cutting of the staff, but the end or consequence of that act; and this distinction requires to be kept clearly in view.

It seems immaterial whether the symbolical meaning of cutting asunder the second staff, Bands, be expressed by the rejection of Israel, the breaking of the covenant of protection, or the abrogation of the law of Moses; for all these events are so closely connected, or so nearly identical, as scarcely to admit of their being disjoined or distinguished.

Ver. 12. ??? ????-_Give me my price._

From the failure of former commentators, in shewing how this can apply to the betrayal of Christ, when the word ???? (or ????) is rendered, as it should be, _wages_ or _reward_, instead of _price_, the Jew seems to have been so confident of victory on this point, that on referring to his exposition which follows, it will appear that he must have written it without having read mine, to which it is any thing but an answer, as I have expounded the pa.s.sage precisely upon his own mode of rendering. The correctness of this translation was acquiesced in by Dr. Blaney, who admitted the difficulty it involved, and candidly acknowledged his inability to solve it; nor while Christ is considered the speaker, as he and Lowth suppose, does the removal of it appear practicable. But when G.o.d himself is understood to be the Shepherd, and Christ, the staff Beauty, it appears no longer insurmountable.

Ver. 13. :???? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?????

_And I took the thirty pieces of silver and cast them to the potter in the house of the Lord._

The word ???? (or ????), is by the Jew changed into ???? (or ????) the alteration of a letter being all that is required to subst.i.tute _the treasury_, in the room of _the potter_. But he cannot deny, that the word means potter in the original, and the Christian will find no occasion to alter it, to make sense of the pa.s.sage. The objection, that the potter could not be at work in the temple, which was urged by the Jew, has been answered in the exposition.